Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.today

4 replies

slrpnk.net

Obviously, the White House does this because they're attention-hungry assholes. So simply reporting that they did something for attention is really just doing them a favor. And adding comments from random internet users observing how disgusting it is is a further waste of time.

Since we're on the topic, though, I want to call out an issue in a movie I otherwise liked quite a bit: the film normalizes extralegal AI-boosted total surveillance in a way that I think was thoughtless and extremely hazardous to our culture.

A decade ago, when Edward Snowden leaked evidence that the US was indiscriminately collecting information on the whereabouts and habits of Americans in obvious contradiction with our fifth amendment rights, there was at least some sense on the part of the government that they had to deny their guilt. But now, there is a normalization of the concept of a panopticon: a police state in which we all assume that our words, thoughts, movements, and associations are presumably known or at least knowable to some unaccountable watcher.

This is bad. I liked the movie, but its flippant embrace of the assumption that we are all observed at all times, and that this is the state of affairs we must acclimate ourselves to, undeserving of anger and simply beyond our ability to challenge if we wanted to is a very dangerous idea that we need to recognize and engage with.

10
MimicJarreply
lemmy.world

It is interesting because in the Nolan Batman films Batman creates a surveillance system, and he doesn't trust himself to use it and it causes his trusted ally Lucius Fox to threaten to quit. So it exists, it works, but we're meant to think it's bad.

In Captain America Winter Soldier we have SHIELD. They, technically HYDRA, have created a system to spy on everyone but it's really only a problem when it is threatening to kill the "wrong" people.

To a lesser extent I think Ultron also fits, although that's more about control than surveillance.

I think this Spider-Man film could have benefited from having a villain get ahold of Spider-Man's system and he's forced to destroy it.

It's possible they could still address this in future films, although it's unlikely.

6
Andyreply
slrpnk.net

Yeah.

I think the defense of the movie is that his surveillance system isn't a thematic concern: it's not a part of the story, it's just a plot device to allow the movie to just hand him whatever information is convenient whenever they like. So the writers probably assume that their hands are clean because it's so flimsy and absent from the film that they might claim that they're making no statement.

However that's frankly bullshit. Not making a statement on something awful is often the loudest statement you can make.

Again, I liked the movie. But I feel this issue must be addressed.

3

Look at it's producer "Avi Arad". That explains everything. It is quite obviously written like that on purpose. It's not a coincidence Spiderman is now so fond of AI.

3

You reached the end